Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

WP:NPOV around FDR's attitude to Jews and the Holocaust

We have a paragraph starting:

After Kristallnacht in 1938, Roosevelt helped expedite Jewish immigration from Germany and Austria, and allowed German citizens already in the United States to stay indefinitely. However, he was prevented from accepting further Jewish immigrants, particularly refugees, by the restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, and antisemitism among voters.[340]

Looking at just a very few of our available sources for starters [1][2][3][4][5][6] the full paragraph is way too flattering. --Chumchum7 (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7, Given the number of reliable sources discussing this, I'd think that at least a single sentence about this controversy (i.e., FDR's antisemitism, to put it bluntly) would be WP:DUE here. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, it should go much further than a single sentence, to reflect the reliable sources' coverage of widespread controversy. It needs to include FDR's infamous response to the Polish Home Army's intelligence report from the Lubelskie region and Warsaw couriered by agent Jan Karski which informed America about the Holocaust. I have WP:BOLD changed the first line as it was plain wrong and had no citation; I have corrected and added citation to Times of Israel. --Chumchum7 (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7, Fair enough - that's why I said at least one sentence. I'll be looking forward to your rewrite/expansion of the relevant content. The sentence you cite above is indeed quite wrong, as it obviously whitewashed FDR suggesting it was "not his fault". The sources I read while writing the article on the War Refugee Board and the Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews suggested that FDR at the very least was indifferent to the plight of the Jews in Europe, and his decisions to help (or not) were simply a cold political calculations on what would get him the most votes for the reelection. He helped a bit in the end, but only because he was shamed to do so by the public opinion (linked Report). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, thank you yes I understand and agree. --Chumchum7 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• For something this important let's keep the sourcing high-quality and scholarly. Too many of the sources linked above are opinion pieces, columns, and a seminar announcement. EEng 09:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, Agreed. There are many academic sources on this, although it seems there is no consensus on what was FDR's attitude ([7], [8]). From "The often bitter debate over FDR and the Holocaust has persisted because it speaks to contemporary political issues". But to portray him as a savior, as our article currently does, is not very balanced. I'll see if I have time to write an article about notable books, entirely dedicated to this, like the FDR and the Jews, The Jews Should Keep Quiet: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust - there are actually others, but they may not be notable, those certainly are. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Piotrus, after my recent adjustments it seems the 'savior myth' PPOV or even OR has been tempered and article balance has been improved - can you point out where any of it still occurs?
• EEng, I agree that sourcing excellence is our objective. In the meantime, rest assured the sources I have used here include the recognized mainstream historians themselves summarizing the same views that they have in their books; the journalistic publications are the first things I could get my hands on to go WP:FIXIT and are reliable secondary sources. FWIW I see them as a holding position for the time being, to be improved upon with the relevant books as soon as we have access to them. Speaking of which, do you have a copy of Smith so that we can attend to the dubious tag here? [9] The line currently attributes the president's actions to the notion that Americans were antisemites; this is not only a gross generalization about an entire country, it also discounts the personal responsibility of leaders (let alone people) for making their own decisions. I doubt Smith says it quite like that. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Chumchum7, For now, I need to read more on this. Hopefully, I'll find time to read and digest reviews for FDR and the Jews which are very numerous (I didn't even finish listing them there), then expand it from a stub. Then I'll revisit this article. In the meantime, I just wanted to note this is not a simple white and black issue, and it is probably best to avoid describing FDR simplistically either as savior or antisemite. On the side note, I wonder if his attitude of rough indifference (and realpolitik) has been analyzed through the evolving POV in the Holocaust studies that tends to see indifference (lack of action) as a form of antisemitism/Holocaust participation (and which is quite controversial, to say the least). PS. I just stubbed The Jews Should Keep Quiet: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust , and it appears to be more critical of FDR. On the other hand, the title of Saving the Jews: FDR and the Holocaust, another book on the topic, suggests it is more friendly to FDR (but that book doesn't appear notable, based on the volume of reviews - or the lack of it - I am seeing). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Piotrus As it stands now, it does not reflect any controversy amongst historians. Rather it promotes a particular point of view and relies heavily on an opinion piece in the LA Times, albeit one by an expert on the subject. On the other hand, HW Brand's biography of Roosevelt paints a slightly different picture; according to Brands, the quota for German immigrants had been filled the President went out of his way to extend visas for Jewish Germans on temporary stay. Additionally, Roosevelt's reluctance to bomb Auschwitz was partly motivated by a concern that it would lead to more deaths of Jews (Brands 381). It is also worth noting that Breitman and Lichtman argue in FDR and the Jews that Roosevelt's policy towards Holocaust refugees was better than that of Churchill or other Presidents vis a vis genocides. I am not saying Medoff is either right or wrong, but that his opinion is not necessarily embraced by the bulk of experts and that his opinion piece should not be cited as a source. --TheobaldShlegel (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Azamat.sadikov16. Peer reviewers: Azamat.sadikov16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliance on a single author?

Many of the lines used in the "Civil rights, internment, and the Holocaust" section cite an LA Times opinion article written by Rafael Medoff. Another line cites an article by The Times of Israel, commenting on a book by the same Rafael Medoff. I have no opposition to the content (or Medoff), but would it not be better to include higher quality sources, and by different viewpoints (authors) instead of a single source? (The La Times opinion article is cited more than any other source in that paragraph). Cantgetusername (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Cantgetusername, welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for chiming in. Please see the section above where this is being discussed. In fact the paragraph doesn't rely on a single source. It has several sources and also cites Smith, twice, which until recently was afair the single source used - which was possibly the cause of the rather skewed paragraph. Hence the addition of Medoff to add another viewpoint. Yes it would be preferable to add Medoff's book aside from his article. We are waiting for someone to bring that - as well as the excerpt of the relevant part of Smith. It would be great if you could be that person. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Chumchum7 Whilst it does not rely on a single author, it does rely heavily on an opinion piece in the LA Times, which in my view probably should not be cited at all. More importantly, the section promotes a particular viewpoint held by some historians, neglecting to mention the contrary perspectives by HW Brands (prominent Roosevelt biographer). By doing so, it implies a consensus where there is a controversy. I go more into detail in the above section. --TheobaldShlegel (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

TheobaldShlegel, thanks for chiming in. If you look through my diffs, you'll see my stated aim was to add balance to what was a previously skewed paragraph that had way too flattering POV. To my mind the current paragraph now offers additional opinion to what existed before, as nothing was removed. I would support Medoff's opinion piece being supported or even replaced by his book form references if you prefer. Please bring them if you can. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Full name

Franklin D. Roosevelt should be Franklin D. Roosevelt Sr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppy2034 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

If you mean renaming the page, then that's not feasible when he's most often known as "Franklin D. Roosevelt" or "FDR", though I've added it to the opening sentence when he had a son FDR Jr. and grandson FDR III who share his name. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit. His son and grandson might commonly be designated "Jr." and "III", to distinguish them from FDR, who wasn't commonly known as "Sr.", at least in my experience. Adding that designation for FDR makes me think you're talking about someone else. I therefore think that there's potential for confusion on the part of others. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this is kept, it might not be as common of a use as FDR Jr. or FDR III, but I thought it was quite obvious that "FDR Sr." refers to this guy and highly doubt others would interpret it or any other form with the suffix as anybody else when he's known to be the original FDR. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Images overcrowding text

The text in the first section is overcrowded by following image. Maybe a gallery could help?

Springwood Home of FDR August 2012.jpg|thumb|left|FDR's birthplace and longtime home in Hyde Park, New York Hoppyh (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

From the 1920 election section: ElectoralCollege1920.svg|thumb|upright=1.3|1920 electoral vote results Hoppyh (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Also from 1920 section: FDR and James M Cox cph.3b03395.jpg|thumb|left|Roosevelt (left) and Cox (right) at a campaign appearance in Washington, D.C., 1920 Hoppyh (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No mention of rhetorical speeches of FDR

Although it's a good Wiki yet I am a little surprised looking at no mention of FDR's distinct, signature style i.e. his rhetorical and political speeches that are still being studied by generations. Franklin Roosevelt was a great communicator and the same should reflect somewhere in his wiki. By 'somewhere' I mean, a dedicated section for the stylistic choices he adopted in his public speaking and political manoeuvres. Few References:

https://www.gale.com/c/franklin-d-roosevelt-the-great-communicator-the-master-speech-files-1898-1910-1945-series-1-franklin-d-roosevelts-political-ascension https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036746 https://rulb.org/en/article/ob-oratorskom-iskusstve-franklina-delano-ruzvelta/ https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1529&context=gsurc

SriSriChinmaya (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation [8] page needed found

The page is page 16 in the book The American President: From Teddy Roosevelt to Bill Clinton 148.75.198.28 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Conforming to one writing style of numbers out or in numerals, as the page is currently inconsistent.

• Small numbers ranging from one to ten should be written out, numbers above ten should be written in numerals:
• Currently the page is inconsistent in this use, and if the change is agreed to, conforming to the general writing style would be the easiest.:
• The widely accepted standard as described here :

~~Norbert Op 't Land~~

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide the actual inconsistencies, rather than asking someone to comb over the entire article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of NPOV violation opinion on cause of economic decline

The article had a statement, which is removable at any rate for having no sources cited. The statement blamed economic decline in or following 1937 on Congressional thwarting of FDR's scheme to pack the SCOTUS. This claim is very controversial and a violation of NPOV. (AltheaCase (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC))

Inappropriate removal of thread

I discussed the removal of a thread by the administrator Muboshgu in their talk page, per WP:ADMINABUSE. Said policy directs people then to use the dispute resolution process if the dispute is not resolved in such a discussion. Unfortunately, the dispute was not resolved. The relevant thread in their talk page is titled "Appeal of removal of discussion".

Before I try to post the dispute in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, "The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment."

Can editors who watch this page tell us their thoughts about whether the thread about the death of FDR should be reinstated to be discussed? I don't think the thread was an instance where the post needed to be removed. The information needed to be discussed to see how to proceeed with it. My rationale is in the talk page of the administrator. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I would let it go. What the IP wrote isn't anything I've heard of, and it was stated in a confusing and denigrating fashion. Rjensen, the original reverter, has done a lot of work on this article, as well as on other articles on US politics and history, and their judgment should be respected. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Polio diagnosis

Armond Goldman has heroically defended his case that Roosevelt's paralysis was a result of Guillain–Barrė syndrome, but it remains an overwhelming minority view. It is currently cited to a book that, according to discussion on the paralytic illness page, he self-published, and not to his original 2003 peer-reviewed paper. A few historians have noted the claim in passing,[10][11][12][13] but they have not endorsed it. WP:UNDUE cautions against presenting the view of a small minority equally with a broadly held view. I would suggest revising the text as follows:

"believed at the time to be polio" -> diagnosed as polio

He was diagnosed with polio.... -> He was diagnosed with polio. Historians have noted a 2003 study strongly favoring a diagnosis of Guillain–Barrė syndrome, but have continued to describe his paralysis according to the contemporary diagnosis.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I've just implemented your suggested edits. YoPienso (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Typo

“lead” should be “led” in second-to-last paragraph. Also, were those presidential rankings made before Ronald Reagan? I would think he should rank higher than FDR. Just a thought. 2601:192:100:297B:B82C:A707:3F97:E1BE (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; I fixed the typo. Regarding presidential rankings, while we should probably update them, Reagan would be eclipsed by FDR. See the latest Siena poll. YoPienso (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

FDR Speaks - six-record album of speeches

FDR Speaks is a six-record album of FDR's speeches that likely deserves its own article or mention here somewhere. At Charles Osgood#WGMS Radio, there is:

In 1960, credited by name and as a WGMS announcer, he provided introductions and commentary on a six-record album of a collection of thirty-three speeches by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt titled FDR Speaks. Edited by historian Henry Steele Commager, it included a welcome by the president's widow, former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Their son Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr. recited one of his father's speeches. The Billboard magazine reported that FDR Speaks "was one of the most listened-to-attractions" at the 1960 Democratic National Convention which nominated senators John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson as its candidates for President and Vice President of the United States.

The producer also won a Grammy Award for Best Performance – Documentary or Spoken Word (Other Than Comedy) in 1961. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2023

Married his cousin Eleanor 24.137.96.60 (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. That she was his fifth cousin once removed is mentioned in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead Section Too Long?

I don't want to put up a cleanup template on a good article, but it seems to me like this lead section is too long. I know that Roosevelt was an important historical figure, but according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs, which this clearly is. I'm just hoping to start a discussion, especially since I might not be the person to shrink the lead if it is determined to be too long. DynaGuy00 (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@DynaGuy00 Absolutely shrink this lead, this is long overdue. Wow (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I also agree - the lead is currently 1115 words, out of about 15,000 in the article. MOS:LEADLENGTH notes that most FAs have leads of about 300 words. I think we can accept that this lead will be longer than that, but 1100 is way too many. I'm going to see if I can cut it back to under 800 with some WP:BOLD editing. I note that when it was listed as a GA in 2018, the lead was only 852 words. 16:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC) —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I made additional cuts to the lead, so we're at around 700 now. Wow (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there would you also be willing to update that FDR received a Law degree from Columbia posthumously? It was awarded in 2008 Awb2023colombia (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Late reply as I don't have this page watchlisted but it's already in the section about FDR's education and early career, in the form of a note. Wow (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I have worked on a new guideline for the lead length because the current one is outdated and too rigid. Check it out to see how best would the lead of this article be addressed with my proposals. Thinker78 (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Shrunk the lead to 541 words now. --Wow (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed the lead is too long but to remove the only example of criticism seems a bit "white-washy" to me Padillah (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of the shortened lede. I'm also worried that the lede being too long was an excuse to leave conservative talking points about FDR in the lede, while omitting liberal and balanced points. pbp 01:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  Just increased the lead to 583 words. Wow (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Lead clutter

I think our encyclopedia is the only one that often shows pronunciation in the lead rather than the personal section. It really makes a mess out of the opening sentence, especially if there is more than one pronunciation. But this article is being used as an example in our MOS guide at MOS:PRONPLACEMENT. It specifically shows us that placement in a footnote is best for the article and writing it out without a footnote is the bad example. Since this is in our Guidelines so prominently, MOS would need to be changed. I fixed it to match our guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Fyunck(click). What would need to change in the MOS? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything needs to change in MOS. I'm saying MOS gives a good and bad example for pronunciation notation in the Franklin D. Roosevelt lead, and we had the bad example being used. I changed it to the good example. I guess instead we could have changed MOS and flipped the good and bad examples but that would require changing MOS in an RFC. I didn't mean we should do that though. It's fine as is in my book. However I think we are the only encyclopedia that ever seems to use pronunciation notation right in the first sentences of leads. I always felt that info is not that important and should be in the personal section of the main body if possible on bios. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmm. If you feel that way I don't understand why you would want to flip the relevant MOS guidance. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I'm saying that since MOS guidance gives us a wrong way and a right way to do it, and Roosevelt was sitting at the wrong way, we either needed to correct Roosevelt (which I did) or change MOS. I'm for changing the article to match MOS but I'm only one editor... perhaps more would rather change MOS? Anyway, cheers to the conversation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

FDR's grandfather up for deletion

Please give a read and add sources and detail to the article if possible, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Roosevelt (businessman), thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The AfD is now on its third relisting. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The last book he was reading

He was reading The punch and Judy murders before dying acording to this and other sources. Should this be included? 2001:569:7E62:F700:AC70:F054:98B8:3852 (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that sounds rather trivial. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Will it be fair to mention it in the book's article then? (Which is a stub anyway) 162.156.121.94 (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless him reading the book somehow brought more fame/publicity to it, I wouldn't recommend adding this there either. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Ff 2600:4041:4463:5D00:D8AE:F07B:1AEA:620 (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Willkie

FDR and Willkie had discussed the formation of a hybrid party ahead of the 1944 election. However, Willkie had died before anything could be made final. 195.188.181.146 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Claim that FDR plotted to murder several FBI agents.

I know Mark Dice is not a reliable source, and neither is YouTube, but I just thought that for the sake of completeness, I should mention this on this talk page.

For what it's worth Mark Dice claims that some files associated with J Edgar Hoover show that FDR plotted to cause the deaths of several FBI agents, because they knew too much about Eleanor's alleged infidelity. I don't believe this for a second, but a definitive debunking would be welcomed by me, and perhaps should be considered for inclusion in the article.

In his YouTube video, "Here's What Trump Is Up Against Now, And It's NOT Pretty!" (The Wikipedia software won't let me link to YouTube.)

Mark Dice says, according to the transcript: " 1:41 Hoover's files also reveal how ruthless 1:43 President Roosevelt was it was believed 1:46 that his wife Eleanor was having an 1:47 affair and after this was investigated 1:50 privately by the FBI and pretty much 1:51 confirmed FDR wanted all the agents who 1:54 worked on the case killed so they 1:57 wouldn't spread rumors about his wife's 1:58 supposed infidel ities the files reveal 2:01 that he personally ordered all of the 2:02 agents who worked on the case to be sent 2:05 to the South Pacific during World War II 2:07 to fight against the Japanese quote 2:09 until they were killed historians admit 2:12 the rampid corruption led by jedar 2:14 Hoover but of course the FBI claims to 2:16 have made changes to prevent such abuses 2:19 from continuing which we all know is a 2:21 lie " Polar Apposite (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)